1. The controversy in this case revolves around execution of certain work orders which were placed with the petitioner by respondent No. 3. Sub--sequently some complications developed between the parties over payments to be made for the works allegedly carried out by the petitioner ; hence this petition.
2. I asked the learned counsel to point out the impugned order. He frankly conceded that there is no impugned order in the juristic sense of the word.
3. I have perused the entire record ; the documents attached with the petition as well as the report filed by respondent No. 3 along with rejoinder subsequently filed by the petitioner.
4. In pith and substance by virtue of this petition, petitioner is seeking enforcement of contractual obligations involving potential factual controversy. The petitioner's stand is that he has completed the work and his payment is being unduly withheld ; whereas respondent's report is that (a) the work has not been completed, and (b) the quality of material used in the partial execution of the works is of spurious and sub-standard nature.
5. It is settled law that constitutional jurisdiction can neither be used as a/ substitute for a suit for recovery of money nor for enforcement of contractual rights and obligations emanating thereunder. In this view of the matter the petition is dismissed in limine. The petitioner, if so advised, may approach appropriate forum for enforcement of his rights, if any.